MALIK TOSA V GEORGE YONO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MALIK TOSA,
UNPUBLISHED
March 18, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
v
No. 274301
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 05-516265-NO
GEORGE YONO,
Defendant-/Third Party PlaintiffAppellant/Cross-Appellee,
and
JAMAL ODEESH and ATEF ASMARO,
Third-Party Defendants.
Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and White and Zahra, JJ.
WHITE, J. (concurring).
Plaintiff made clear that his claim was not predicated on the hole in the parking lot
surface, but the presence of the dog in the parking lot. I agree that the presence of the dog did
not present a special aspect. See Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512, 517-520; 629
NW2d 384 (2001).
I also agree that Yono had no duty to install a fence around the parking lot. The record
established that the dogs frequented the neighborhood, not just the restaurant parking lot. And,
while there were references to the garbage from the restaurant, there was no indication that
Yono, the property owner, had control of the garbage or the method of its disposal, or that the
parking lot or garbage bin attracted dogs to the neighborhood, as opposed to being among the
areas in the neighborhood visited by the dogs.
I also agree that plaintiff failed to establish that a condition on the premises constituted a
public nuisance.
/s/ Helene N. White
-1-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
